## Facts

- DIRECTV encrypted its satellite signal and pursued anti-piracy efforts against persons using devices capable of unauthorized decryption.
- After obtaining federal writs of seizure against entities connected to piracy devices, DIRECTV used seized records to identify purchasers of such devices.
- DIRECTV sent form demand letters to thousands of identified purchasers requesting they cease using the devices and reflecting threatened or contemplated litigation.
- Letter recipients, including the plaintiffs, sued alleging unfair competition under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), civil rights violations, and extortion based on the demand-letter campaign.
- DIRECTV filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16); the trial court granted the motion and awarded attorney’s fees to DIRECTV.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs’ UCL claim qualified as a “public interest” action exempt from anti-SLAPP under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.17(b).
2. Whether the challenged claims arose from protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and, if so, whether plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing.
3. Whether the demand letters were absolutely privileged under the Civil Code § 47(b) litigation privilege, barring claims predicated on the letters.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting DIRECTV’s anti-SLAPP motion and the resulting judgment for DIRECTV.
- The court held the UCL claim did not qualify for the § 425.17(b) public-interest exemption because the suit primarily sought redress for a limited group (letter recipients) rather than conferring a broader public benefit.
- The court held DIRECTV met its threshold burden under § 425.16 because the demand letters were prelitigation communications connected to contemplated or ongoing litigation and therefore constituted protected petitioning activity.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing because the Civil Code § 47(b) litigation privilege absolutely protected the demand letters, defeating causes of action based on those communications.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fee award to DIRECTV as the prevailing anti-SLAPP movant.

## Legal Principles

- Code Civ. Proc. § 425.17(b) exempts only genuinely public-interest actions from anti-SLAPP; claims primarily serving private or narrow group interests do not qualify.
- Prelitigation demand letters sufficiently connected to contemplated or ongoing litigation may constitute protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.
- Civil Code § 47(b) provides an absolute privilege for communications made in, or in serious anticipation of, judicial proceedings; it can bar UCL and other tort-based claims when liability is premised on the privileged communication.
- A prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of claims attacking DIRECTV’s anti-piracy demand-letter campaign, holding the action was not exempt as a public-interest suit, the letters were protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the litigation privilege independently barred claims based on the letters.


Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc., 123 Cal. App. 4th 903, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 385 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)